Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Ivey

[This draft was originally written around 5/28/06. Since then, more recent events such as two more rounds of layoffs and scores of voluntary resignations have occurred making even the sputtering attempts at a positive perspective appear well off the mark. It is clear that ownership/management made a fundamental choice a good long time ago to clean house and start over with people who share their "core values." This is all part of the plan. -JD ]

Since the creation of this blog we have fretted over its purpose, meaning and direction. While aiming to stay on the high road by making it positive both in its approach and commentary -- whether informational or critique-driven -- we have had our challenges. Do we merely reflect the Ivey community "as is" (and act as an extension of or competitor to the company sanctioned newsletter), or do we try to go deeper in giving voice to perspectives that are outside the control and thinking of the management team? Or is this a waste of time where nobody really gives a hoot?

This is not yet clear. Perhaps we should give up and put our energies elsewhere. But let us assume that this forum has not yet outlived its usefulness and we want to take the second path for a moment.

Many working at Ivey at different turns are angry, frustrated, hopeful, exhausted and cynical -- sometimes all within the same shift. I think that people would like to believe that the decision-makers at Ivey share the same values that they do. They really would. But for the most part they see too many things which give them pause and make them distrust the management team.

Two examples pop out immediately.

It is common knowledge that there has been significant attrition of people in the last year -- not including "Cinco de Mayo 11." But the rate of replenishing this labor pool, never mind job empowerment and training (quick: have you met with your manager about your cross-training goals???), has lagged far behind this attrition. As a result, there are areas of the company where people do NOT want to transfer into because of the perception of "chaos" and tumult. Sometimes it appears to the casual observer that the area of job growth within the company is ANYTHING not having to do with actual job fulfillment. People are running away from this work as quickly as the jobs open elsewhere. I won't point fingers, but there is this mostly unspoken perception within the company of those who "do" and those who "don't" get their hands dirty.

So it all becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where people are understaffed and stressed to keep up with company growth goals to an extent where people leave for greener pastures which makes for even fewer people carrying the burden of moving the company forward and those who remain give even more serious consideration to going elsewhere. And on it goes.

Secondly, the combination of having the largest sales month in the history of the company (with projections of more good months to come) while losing several top management salaries (as well as all the others mentioned above) have put people in a mind that we should expect to see handsome rewards and bonuses under the new system installed to take the place of the profit share. Right? It would appear that going "lean and mean" within the company and that this outward appearance of profitability (with all of these fewer salaries) should bring higher rewards for those who stayed on under this new regime, correct?

If we use the language and logic of the management team's own rhetoric, the workforce should expect to see rewards for their sacrifices and added responsibilities. And yet, bring up this topic to anybody and they are likely to bring reactions of rolling eyes and hunching backs. No one is holding their breath, that's for sure. It may be too early to say for sure, but expectations are not very high that rewards will "trickle down."

Which brings us to the topic at hand: why does this forum exist?

Is there an alternative response to the management team and what their vision for Ivey entails? While documenting complaints may seem valuable, what is it we would like to see change? Where do we collectively want to go?

"Asking the question," so they say, can be a scary proposition to some. People get angry. This sentiment can be summarized by the most recent "anonymous" comment posted to the blog (keep 'em coming!) in response to acknowledging the layoff of a year ago -- presumably from a worker who is not a decision-maker. Let me repost it here:

Anonymous said...

Honestly -- GET OVER IT!! It was a YEAR AGO! MOVE ON.

This was not the first layoff in the company history so why the hell is it such a big deal? Some of the whiners need to get out in the real world and see that much much worse happens out there, compared to Ivey's little dramas.

Yeah, it sucked - but that's life baby suck it up and get on with it."

The writer is implying that what is happening within the walls of Ivey is not related to the "real world." And by that, I am assuming that he or she thinks that Ivey is unaffected by larger economic forces as they come to bear on South Lake Union, Seattle, Washington State, the U.S. and globally. Fair enough.

Let me take a stab at an alternative explanation interpretation for some of what we see taking place at our own workplace.

Recently, I came across two ideas that in combination help to give shape to the "malaise" within part of the Ivey workforce that has no specific name or easy definition. Then again, I could be talking out of my butt.

While listening to a progressive talk radio author of a book on Thomas Jefferson, he described Jefferson's political philosophy as one in which the "community" takes precedence over "property." That is the essence of democracy. This was one of the core principles that separated the newly formed United States from their forebears, the idea that the consent of the governed collectively should have more power than accumulated wealth in the form of landowners or the aristocracy of entrenched wealth.

This Jefferson author bolstered the point by adding that in the earlier drafts of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson used "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property" -- a phrase coined by Adam Smith. Jefferson eventually changed this to how we know it today -- "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" -- to reflect a clean break from feudalism or the power of property.

Jump forward some 230 years and we find the relevance of such a distinction played out in our modern global economy. Watching the film The Yes Men as they goof pseudo-presentations of World Trade Organization policy gone terribly wrong just to get a reaction from business people (they don't), I was struck by a throw-off comment in the film. To paraphrase, those in charge of global free trade are completely oblivious to how dehumanizing the policies they advance are to those who work under them. This is shown through the spoofs done in front of real trade representatives by the Yes Men.

So I would argue that the tension within company walls that the anonymous poster regards as being outside "the real world" is part of larger global economic forces. We do hear people acknowledging this transition by calling it "going corporate." They use this phrase (among others) to embody these feelings of a marketplace impacting their everyday work lives. In other words, the tension and/or malaise that goes unacknowledged and unnamed is the transition where there was more community and policies reflected this hierarchy to one where the workplace community matters less and the company goals matter more. And as this "branding" of the Ivey "image" takes place, there is less connected to the Ivey experience that involves the actual people who work here. According to owner/management, Ivey no longer is embodied by David Azose or Val McCown (for example). The stated goal of the company is that the Ivey community takes a backseat to the clients. Or, in other words, it is as if the Declaration of Independence defaulted back to its earlier version that the greatest good and most rights are afforded to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Wealth.

To be fair, yes, Ivey does better than most in trying to make itself a positive work experience. The stated goal is to pay at or slightly above-market for its labor. There is an ongoing effort at maintaining comprehensive medical insurance in a period of runaway costs. The third ownership group is the first local investment since Ken Seright sold the company.

--- (yet to work out) ---

Often one hears such talk dismissed in the larger society with the following comment: a company isn't a democracy. The implication is clear. Voting on every company policy and decision would be inefficient and unwieldy. And such thinking is lunacy. It is taken as a matter of faith -- and this in a so-called secular society -- that democracy and good business outcomes are totally incompatible. We are inundated with the ideas surrounding free market economic ideology.

Yet there was a little publicized report earlier this year which stated that the Scandanavian countries that have the most government intervention and the most social spending also have the most economic competition which flies completely against the orthodoxy we are brain-washed in on a daily basis.